Two hundred and fifty bishops assembled at Sardica466466 The
Council met in 343, according to Hefele; 344, according to Mansi, on
the authority of the Festal Letters of Athanasius. Summoned by both
Emperors, it was presided over by Hosius. The accounts of the numbers
present vary. Some authorities adhere to the traditional date, 347.
Soc. ii. 20; Soz. iii. 11., as is proved by ancient records. The
great Athanasius, Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, already mentioned467467 Vide I. xxvii., and Marcellus468468 Perhaps present at the Synod of Ancyra (Angora), in a.d. 315. Died, a.d. 374.
Marcellus played the man at Nicæa, and was accused by the Arians
of Sabellianism, and deposed. He was distrusted as a trimmer, but could
boast “se communione Julii et Athanasii, Romanæ et
Alexandrinæ urbis pontificum, esse munitum” (Jer. de vir.
ill. c. 86). Cardinal Newman thinks Athanasius attacked him in the
IVth Oration against the Arians. Vide Dict. Christ. Biog. iii.
808.,
bishop of Ancyra, the metropolis of Galatia, who also held this
bishopric at the time of the council of Nicæa, all repaired
thither. The calumniators, and the chiefs of the Arian faction, who had
previously judged the cause of Athanasius, also attended. But when they
found that the members of the synod were staunch in their adherence to
sound doctrine, they would not even enter the council, although they
had been summoned to it, but fled away, both accusers and judges. All
these circumstances are far more clearly explained in a letter drawn up
by the council; and I shall therefore now insert it.

Synodical Letter from the
Bishops assembled at Sardica, addressed to the other
Bishops.

“The madness of the Arians
has often led them to the perpetration of violent atrocities
68against the
servants of God who keep the true faith; they introduce false doctrines
themselves, and persecute those who uphold orthodox principles. So
violent were their attacks on the faith, that they reached the ears of
our most pious emperors. Through the co-operation of the grace of God,
the emperors have summoned us from different provinces and cities to
the holy council which they have appointed to be held in the city of
Sardica, in order that all dissensions may be terminated, all evil
doctrines expelled, and the religion of Christ alone maintained amongst
all people. Some bishops from the east have attended the council at the
solicitation of our most religious emperors, principally on account of
the reports circulated against our beloved brethren and
fellow-ministers, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, bishop
of Ancyra in Galatia, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza. Perhaps the
calumnies of the Arians have already reached you, and they have
endeavoured thus to forestall the council, and make you believe their
groundless accusations of the innocent, and prevent any suspicion being
raised of the depraved heresy which they uphold. But they have not long
been permitted so to act. The Lord is the Protector of the churches;
for them and for us all He suffered death, and opened for us the way to
heaven.

“The adherents of
Eusebius, Maris, Theodorus, Theognis, Ursacius, Valens, Menophantus,
and Stephanus, had already written to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and
our fellow-minister, against our aforesaid fellow-ministers,
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in
Galatia, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza. Some bishops of the opposite
party wrote also to Julius, testifying to the innocence of Athanasius,
and proving that all that had been asserted by the followers of
Eusebius was nothing more than lies and slander. The refusal of the
Arians to obey the summons of our beloved brother and fellow-ruler,
Julius, and also the letter written by that bishop, clearly prove the
falseness of their accusation. For, had they believed that what they
had done and represented against our fellow-minister admitted of
justification, they would have gone to Rome. But their mode of
procedure in this great and holy council is a manifest proof of their
fraud. Upon their arrival at Sardica, they perceived that our brethren,
Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepas, and others, were there also; they were
therefore afraid to come to the test, although they had been summoned,
not once or twice only, but repeatedly. There were they waited for by
the assembled bishops, particularly by the venerable Hosius, one worthy
of all honour and respect, on account of his advanced age, his
adherence to the faith, and his labours for the church. All urged them
to join the assembly and avail themselves of the opportunity of
proving, in the presence of their fellow-ministers, the truth of the
charges they had brought against them in their absence, both by word
and by letter. But they refused to obey the summons, as we have already
stated, and so by their excesses proved the falsity of their
statements, and all but proclaimed aloud the plot and schemes they had
formed. Men confident of the truth of their assertions are always ready
to stand to them openly. But as these accusers would not appear to
substantiate what they had advanced, any future allegations which they
may by their usual artifices bring against our fellow-ministers, will
only be regarded as proceeding from a desire of slandering them in
their absence, without the courage to confront them openly.

“They fled, beloved
brethren, not only because their charges were slander, but also because
they saw men arrive with serious and manifold accusations against
themselves. Chains and fetters were produced. Some were present whom
they had exiled: others came forward as representatives of those still
kept in exile. There stood relations and friends of men whom they had
put to death. Most serious of all, bishops also appeared, one of whom469469 Probably Lucius, Bishop of Hadrianople, who had been deposed by
the Arians, and appealed to Julius, who wished to right him. Still kept
out by the Arians, he appealed to the Council of Sardica, and, in
accordance with its decree, Constantius ordered his restoration (Soc.
ii. 26). Cf. Chap. XII. exhibited the irons and the chains with
which they had laden him. Others testified that death followed their
false charges. For their infatuation had led them so far as even to
attempt the life of a bishop; and he would have been killed had he not
escaped from their hands. Theodulus470470 Bishop of Trajanopolis (Ath. Hist. Ar. 19)., our
fellow-minister, of blessed memory, passed hence with their calumny on
his name; for, through it, he had been condemned to death. Some showed
the wounds which had been inflicted on them by the sword; others
deposed that they had been exposed to the miseries of
famine.

“All these depositions
were made, not by a few obscure individuals, but by whole churches; the
presbyters of these churches giving evidence that the persecutors had
armed the military against them with swords, and the common people with
clubs; had employed judicial threats, and produced spurious documents.
The letters written by Theognis, for the purpose of prejudicing the
emperor against our fellow-ministers, Athanasius, Marcellus, and
Asclepas, were read and attested by those who had formerly been the
deacons 69of
Theognis. It was also proved that they had stripped virgins naked, had
burnt churches, and imprisoned our fellow-ministers, and all because of
the infamous heresy of the Ariomaniacs. For thus all who refused to
make common cause with them were treated.

“The consciousness of
having committed all these crimes placed them in great straits. Ashamed
of their deeds, which could no longer be concealed, they repaired to
Sardica, thinking that their boldness in venturing thither would remove
all suspicion of their guilt. But when they perceived the presence of
those whom they had falsely accused, and of those who had suffered from
their cruelty; and that likewise several had come with irrefragable
accusations against them, they would not enter the council. Our
fellow-ministers, on the other hand, Athanasius, Marcellus, and
Asclepas, took every means to induce them to attend, by tears, by
urgency, by challenge, promising not only to prove the falsity of their
accusations, but also to show how deeply they had injured their own
churches. But they were so overwhelmed by the consciousness of their
own evil deeds, that they took to flight, and by this flight clearly
proved the falsity of their accusations as well as their own
guilt.

“But though their calumny
and perfidy, which had indeed been apparent from the beginning, were
now clearly perceived, yet we determined to examine the circumstances
of the case according to the laws of truth, lest they should, from
their very flight, derive pretexts for renewed acts of
deceitfulness.

“Upon carrying this
resolution into effect, we proved by their actions that they were false
accusers, and that they had formed plots against our fellow-ministers.
Arsenius, whom they declared had been put to death by Athanasius, is
still alive, and takes his place among the living. This fact alone is
sufficient to show that their other allegations are false.

“Although they spread a
report everywhere that a chalice had been broken by Macarius, one of
the presbyters of Athanasius, yet those who came from Alexandria, from
Mareotis, and from other places, testified that this was not the fact;
and the bishops in Egypt wrote to Julius, our fellow-minister,
declaring that there was not the least suspicion that such a deed had
been done. The judicial facts which the Arians assert they possess
against Macarius have been all drawn up by one party; and in these
documents the depositions of pagans and of catechumens were included.
One of these catechumens, when interrogated, replied that he was in the
church on the entry of Macarius. Another deposed that Ischyras, whom
they had talked about so much, was then lying ill in his cell. Hence it
appears that the mysteries could not have been celebrated at that time,
as the catechumens were present, and as Ischyras was absent; for he was
at that very time confined by illness. Ischyras, that wicked man who
had falsely affirmed that Athanasius had burnt some of the sacred
books, and had been convicted of the crime, now confessed that he was
ill in bed when Macarius arrived; hence the falsehood of his accusation
was clearly demonstrated. His calumny was, however, rewarded by his
party; they gave him the title of a bishop, although he was not yet
even a presbyter. For two presbyters came to the synod, who some time
back had been attached to Meletius, and were afterwards received back
by the blessed Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and are now with
Athanasius, protesting that he had never been ordained a presbyter, and
that Meletius had never had any church, or employed any minister in
Mareotis. Yet, although he had never been ordained a presbyter, they
promote him to a bishopric, in order that his title may impose upon
those who hear his false accusations471471 The
strange story of Ischyras is gathered from notices in the Apol. c.
Arian. Without ordination, he started a small conventicle of some
half-dozen people, and the Alexandrian Synod of 324 condemned his
pretensions. The incident of the text may be assigned to 329. He
afterwards faced both ways, to Athanasius and the Eusebians, and was
recognised by them as a bishop. Dict. Christ. Biog. iii.
302..

“The writings of our
fellow-minister, Marcellus, were also read, and plainly evinced the
duplicity of the adherents of Eusebius; for what Marcellus had simply
suggested as a point of inquiry, they accused him of professing as a
point of faith. The statements which he had made, both before and after
the inquiry, were read, and his faith was proved to be orthodox. He did
not affirm, as they represented, that the beginning of the Word of God
was dated from His conception by the holy Mary, or that His kingdom
would have an end. On the contrary, he wrote that His kingdom had had
no beginning, and would have no end. Asclepas, our fellow-minister,
produced the reports drawn up at Antioch in the presence of the
accusers, and of Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, and proved his
innocence by the sentence of the bishops who had presided as
judges.

“It was not then without
cause, beloved brethren, that, although so frequently summoned, they
would not attend the council; it was not without cause that they took
to flight. The reproaches of conscience constrained them to make their
escape, and thus, at the same time, to demonstrate the groundlessness
of their calumnies, and the truth of those accusations which were
advanced and 70proved against them. Besides all the other grounds of complaint,
it may be added that all those who had been accused of holding the
Arian heresy, and had been ejected in consequence, were not only
received, but advanced to the highest dignities by them. They raised
deacons to the presbyterate, and thence to the episcopate; and in all
this they were actuated by no other motive than the desire of
propagating and diffusing their heresy, and of corrupting the true
faith.

“Next to Eusebius, the
following are their principal leaders; Theodorus, bishop of Heraclea,
Narcissus, bishop of Neronias in Cilicia, Stephanus, bishop of Antioch,
Georgius472472 Georgius succeeded the Arian Theodotus, of whom mention has
already been made (p. 42), in the see of the Syrian Laodicea (Latakia).
Athanasius (de fug. §26), speaks of his “dissolute
life, condemned even by his own friends.”, bishop of Laodicea, Acacius473473 Known as ὁ μονόφθαλμος, “The one-eyed.” He succeeded the Historian
Eusebius in the see of Cæsarea in 340, and the Nicomedian Eusebius
as a leader of the Arian Court party in 342., bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine,
Menophantus, bishop of Ephesus in Asia, Ursacius, bishop of
Singidunum474474 Now
Belgrade. in Mœsia, and Valens, bishop
of Mursa475475 Now
Esseg on the Drave. Here Constantius defeated Magnentius, a.d. 351. in Pannonia. These bishops forbade
those who came with them from the east to attend the holy council, or
to unite with the Church of God. On their road to Sardica they held
private assemblies at different places, and formed a compact cemented
by threats, that, when they arrived in Sardica, they would not join the
holy council, nor assist at its deliberations; arranging that, as soon
as they had arrived they should present themselves for form’s
sake, and forthwith betake themselves to flight. These facts were made
known to us by our fellow-ministers, Macarius of Palestine476476 Bishop of Petra in Palestine. (Tomus ad Antioch. 10.) There
is some confusion in the names of the sees, and a doubt whether there
were really two Petras. Cf. Reland, Palestine, p. 298, Le Quien,
East. Christ. iii. 665, 666., and Asterius of Arabia477477 Bishop of Petra in Arabia, (Ath. Hist. Ar. 18, Apol.
cont. Ar. 48)., who came with them to Sardica, but
refused to share their unorthodoxy. These bishops complained before the
holy council of the violent treatment they had received from them, and
of the want of right principles evinced in all their transactions. They
added that there were many amongst them who still held orthodox
opinions, but that these were prevented from going to the council; and
that sometimes threats, sometimes promises, were resorted to, in order
to retain them in that party. For this reason they were compelled to
reside together in one house; and never allowed, even for the shortest
space of time, to be alone.

“It is not right to pass
over in silence and without rebuke the calumnies, the imprisonments,
the murders, the stripes, the forged letters, the indignities, the
stripping naked of virgins, the banishments, the destruction of
churches, the acts of incendiarism, the translation of bishops from
small towns to large dioceses, and above all, the ill-starred Arian
heresy, raised by their means against the true faith. For these causes,
therefore, we declare the innocence and purity of our beloved brethren
and fellow-ministers, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus,
bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, and of all
the other servants of God who are with them; and we have written to
each of their dioceses, in order that the people of each church may be
made acquainted with the innocence of their respective bishops, and
that they may recognise them alone and wait for their return. Men who
have come down on their churches like wolves478478 Cf. Acts xx. 29, such as Gregorius in Alexandria,
Basilius in Ancyra, and Quintianus479479 Thrust on the see of Gaza by the Arians on the deposition of
Asclepas (Soz. iii. 8, 12). in Gaza, we
charge them not even to call bishops, nor yet Christians, nor to have
any communion with them, nor to receive any letters from them, nor to
write to them.

“Theodorus, bishop of
Heraclea in Europe, Narcissus, bishop of Neronias in Cilicia, Acacius,
bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, Stephanus, bishop of Antioch,
Ursacius, bishop of Singidunum in Mœsia, Valens, bishop of Mursa
in Pannonia, Menophantus, bishop of Ephesus, and Georgius, bishop of
Laodicea (for though fear kept him from leaving the East, he has been
deposed by the blessed Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and has imbibed
the infatuation of the Arians), have on account of their various crimes
been cast forth from their bishoprics by the unanimous decision of the
holy council. We have decreed that they are not only not to be regarded
as bishops, but to be refused communion with us. For those who separate
the Son from the substance and divinity of the Father, and alienate the
Word from the Father, ought to be separated from the Catholic Church,
and alienated from all who bear the name of Christians. Let them then
be anathema to you, and to all the faithful, because they have
corrupted the word of truth. For the apostle’s precept enjoins,
if any one should bring to you another gospel than that which ye have
received, let him be accursed480480Gal. i. 8. Command that
no one hold communion with them; for light can have no fellowship with
darkness. Keep far off from them; for what concord has Christ with
Belial? Be careful, beloved brethren, that you neither write to them
nor receive their 71letters. Endeavour, beloved brethren and fellow-ministers,
as though present with us in spirit at the council, to give your hearty
consent to what is enacted, and affix to it your written signature, for
the sake of preserving unanimity of opinion among all our
fellow-ministers throughout the world481481 Here, according to the Version of Athanasius (Ap. cont. Ar.
49), the Synodical Epistle ends. An argument against the genuineness of
the addition is the introduction of a new formula of faith, while from
the letter of Athanasius “ex synodo Alexandrinâ ad legatos
apostolicæ sedis,”" it is plain that nothing was added to
the Nicene Creed. (Labbe iii. 84.).

“We declare those men
excommunicate from the Catholic Church who say that Christ is God, but
not the true God; that He is the Son, but not the true Son; and that He
is both begotten and made; for such persons acknowledge that they
understand by the term ‘begotten,’ that which has been
made; and because, although the Son of God existed before all ages,
they attribute to Him, who exists not in time but before all time, a
beginning and an end482482 This passage is very corrupt: the translation follows the Greek of
Valesius, γεννητός
ἐστιν ἅμα καὶ
γενητός. It
is not certain that the distinction between ἀγέννητος “unbegotten,” and ἀγένητος, “uncreate,” was in use quite so early as 344. If the
passage is spurious and of later date, the distinction might be more
naturally found..

“Valens and Ursacius have,
like two vipers brought forth by an asp, proceeded from the Arian
heresy. For they boastingly declare themselves to be undoubted
Christians, and yet affirm that the Word and the Holy Ghost were both
crucified and slain, and that they died and rose again; and they
pertinaciously maintain, like the heretics, that the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost are of diverse and distinct essences483483ὑποστάσεις. We have been taught, and we hold the
catholic and apostolic tradition and faith and confession which teach,
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have one essence, which is
termed substance484484οὐσία by the heretics.
If it is asked, ‘What is the essence of the Son?’ we
confess, that it is that which is acknowledged to be that of the Father
alone; for the Father has never been, nor could ever be, without the
Son, nor the Son without the Father. It is most absurd to affirm that
the Father ever existed without the Son, for that this could never be
so has been testified by the Son Himself, who said, ‘I am in
the Father, and the Father in Me485485John xiv. 10;’ and
‘I and My Father are one486486John x. 30.’
None of us denies that He was begotten; but we say that He was begotten
before all things, whether visible or invisible; and that He is the
Creator of archangels and angels, and of the world, and of the human
race. It is written, ‘Wisdom which is the worker of all things
taught me487487Wisdom vii.
22,’ and again, ‘All
things were made by Him488488John i. 3.’

“He could not have existed
always if He had had a beginning, for the everlasting Word has no
beginning, and God will never have an end. We do not say that the
Father is Son, nor that the Son is Father; but that the Father is
Father, and the Son of the Father Son. We confess that the Son is Power
of the Father. We confess that the Word is Word of God the Father, and
that beside Him there is no other. We believe the Word to be the true
God, and Wisdom and Power. We affirm that He is truly the Son, yet not
in the way in which others are said to be sons: for they are either
gods by reason of their regeneration, or are called sons of God on
account of their merit, and not on account of their being of one
essence489489ὑπόστασις, as is the case with the Father and the
Son. We confess an Only-begotten and a Firstborn; but that the Word is
only-begotten, who ever was and is in the Father. We use the word
firstborn with respect to His human nature. But He is superior (to man)
in the new creation490490 This
translation follows the reading of the Allatian Codex, adopted by
Valesius, τῇ
καινῇ
κτίσει. If we
read κοινῇ for
καινῇ, we must render “excels or differs in relation to the
common creation” which He shares with man. (of the
Resurrection), inasmuch as He is the Firstborn from the
dead.

“We confess that God is;
we confess the divinity of the Father and of the Son to be one. No one
denies that the Father is greater than the Son: not on account of
another essence491491ὑπόστασις, nor yet on account
of their difference, but simply from the very name of the Father being
greater than that of the Son. The words uttered by our Lord,
‘I and My Father are one492492John x. 30,’ are
by those men explained as referring to the concord and harmony which
prevail between the Father and the Son; but this is a blasphemous and
perverse interpretation. We, as Catholics, unanimously condemned this
foolish and lamentable opinion: for just as mortal men on a difference
having arisen between them quarrel and afterwards are reconciled, so do
such interpreters say that disputes and dissension are liable to arise
between God the Father Almighty and His Son; a supposition which is
altogether absurd and untenable. But we believe and maintain that those
holy words, ‘I and My Father are one,’ point out the
oneness of essence493493ὑπόστασις which is one and
the same in the Father and in the Son.

“We also believe that the
Son reigns with the Father, that His reign has neither beginning nor
end, and that it is not bounded by time, nor can ever cease: for that
which always exists never begins to be, and can never cease.

“We believe in and we
receive the Holy 72Ghost the Comforter, whom the Lord both promised and sent.
We believe in It as sent.

“It was not the Holy Ghost
who suffered, but the manhood with which He clothed Himself; which He
took from the Virgin Mary, which being man was capable of suffering;
for man is mortal, whereas God is immortal. We believe that on the
third day He rose, the man in God, not God in the man; and that He
brought as a gift to His Father the manhood which He had delivered from
sin and corruption.

“We believe that, at a
meet and fixed time, He Himself will judge all men and all their
deeds.

“So great is the ignorance
and mental darkness of those whom we have mentioned, that they are
unable to see the light of truth. They cannot comprehend the meaning of
the words: ‘that they may be one in us494494John xvii. 21.’ It is obvious why the word
‘one’ was used; it was because the apostles received
the Holy Spirit of God, and yet there were none amongst them who were
the Spirit, neither was there any one of them who was Word, Wisdom,
Power, or Only-begotten. ‘As Thou,’ He said,
‘and I are one, that they, may be one in us.’ These
holy words, ‘that they may be one in us,’ are
strictly accurate: for the Lord did not say, ‘one in the same way
that I and the Father are one,’ but He said, ‘that the
disciples, being knit together and united, may be one in faith and in
confession, and so in the grace and piety of God the Father, and by the
indulgence and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, may be able to become
one.’”

From this letter may be learnt
the duplicity of the calumniators, and the injustice of the former
judges, as well as the soundness of the decrees. These holy fathers
have taught us not only truths respecting the Divine nature, but also
the doctrine of the Incarnation495495οἰκονομία. In classical Greek οἰκονομία
is simply the management (α) of a household,
(β) of
the state. In the N.T. we have it in Luke xvi. for
“stewardship,” and in five other places; (i) 1 Cor. ix.
17,
A.V. “dispensation,” R.V. “stewardship;”
(ii) Eph. i. 10 A.V. and R.V. “dispensation;” (iii) Eph. iii.
2,
A.V. and R.V. “dispensation;” (iv) Col. i. 25, A.V. and R.V.
“dispensation;” (v) 1 Tim. i. 4, where A.V.
adopts the inferior reading οἰκοδομήν, and R.V. renders the οἰκονομίαν
of אAFGKLP by “dispensation.” Suicer gives as the meanings
of the word (i) ministerium evangelii, (ii) providentia et numen quo
Dei sapientia omnia moderatur, (iii) ipsa Christi naturæ
humanæ assumptio, (iv) totius redemptionis mysterium et passionis
Christi Sacramentum. Theodoret himself (Ed. Migne iv. 93) says
τὴν
ἐνανθρώπησιν
δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ
Λόγου
καλοῦμεν
οἰκονομίαν, and quaintly distinguishes (Cant. Cant. p. 83)
ἡ σμύρνα καὶ ὁ
λίβανος
τουτέστιν ἡ
θεολογία τε
καὶ
οἰκονομία. On a phrase of St. Ignatius (Eph. xviii.),
“ὁ χριστὸς
ἐκυοφορήθη
ὑπὸ Μαρίας
κατ᾽
οἰκονομίαν,” Bp. Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers, II. p. 75
note) writes: “The word οἰκονομία
came to be applied more especially to the Incarnation
because this was par excellence the system or plan which God had
ordained for the government of His household and the dispensation of
His stores. Hence in the province of theology, οἰκονομία
was distinguished by the Fathers from θεολογία proper, the former being the teaching which was concerned
with the Incarnation and its consequences, and the latter the teaching
which related to the Eternal and Divine nature of Christ. The first
step towards this special appropriation of οἰκονομία
to the Incarnation is found in St. Paul; e.g.
Ephes. i.
10, εἰς
οἰκονομίαν
τοῦ
πληρώματος
τῶν καιρῶν.…In this passage of Ignatius it is moreover connected
with the ‘reserve’ of God (xix. εν ἡσυχί& 139·
θεοῦ
ἐπράχθη).
Thus ‘economy’ has already reached its first stage on the
way to the sense of ‘dissimulation,’ which was afterwards
connected with it, and which led to disastrous consequences in the
theology and practice of a later age.” Cf. Newman’s
Arians, chap. i. sec. 3..

Constans was much concerned on
hearing of the easy temper of his brother, and was highly incensed
against those who had contrived this plot and artfully taken advantage
of it. He chose two of the bishops who had attended the council of
Sardica, and sent them with letters to his brother; he also despatched
Salianus, a military commander who was celebrated for his piety and
integrity, on the same embassy. The letters which he forwarded by them,
and which were worthy of himself, contained not only entreaties and
counsels, but also menaces. In the first place, he charged his brother
to attend to all that the bishops might say, and to take cognizance of
the crimes of Stephanus and of his accomplices. He also required him to
restore Athanasius to his flock; the calumny of the accusers and the
injustice and ill-will of his former judges having become evident. He
added, that if he would not accede to his request, and perform this act
of justice, he would himself go to Alexandria, restore Athanasius to
his flock which earnestly longed for him, and expel all
opponents.

Constantius was at Antioch when
he received this letter; and he agreed to carry out all that his
brother commanded.

466 The
Council met in 343, according to Hefele; 344, according to Mansi, on
the authority of the Festal Letters of Athanasius. Summoned by both
Emperors, it was presided over by Hosius. The accounts of the numbers
present vary. Some authorities adhere to the traditional date, 347.
Soc. ii. 20; Soz. iii. 11.

468 Perhaps present at the Synod of Ancyra (Angora), in a.d. 315. Died, a.d. 374.
Marcellus played the man at Nicæa, and was accused by the Arians
of Sabellianism, and deposed. He was distrusted as a trimmer, but could
boast “se communione Julii et Athanasii, Romanæ et
Alexandrinæ urbis pontificum, esse munitum” (Jer. de vir.
ill. c. 86). Cardinal Newman thinks Athanasius attacked him in the
IVth Oration against the Arians. Vide Dict. Christ. Biog. iii.
808.

469 Probably Lucius, Bishop of Hadrianople, who had been deposed by
the Arians, and appealed to Julius, who wished to right him. Still kept
out by the Arians, he appealed to the Council of Sardica, and, in
accordance with its decree, Constantius ordered his restoration (Soc.
ii. 26). Cf. Chap. XII.

471 The
strange story of Ischyras is gathered from notices in the Apol. c.
Arian. Without ordination, he started a small conventicle of some
half-dozen people, and the Alexandrian Synod of 324 condemned his
pretensions. The incident of the text may be assigned to 329. He
afterwards faced both ways, to Athanasius and the Eusebians, and was
recognised by them as a bishop. Dict. Christ. Biog. iii.
302.

472 Georgius succeeded the Arian Theodotus, of whom mention has
already been made (p. 42), in the see of the Syrian Laodicea (Latakia).
Athanasius (de fug. §26), speaks of his “dissolute
life, condemned even by his own friends.”

473 Known as ὁ μονόφθαλμος, “The one-eyed.” He succeeded the Historian
Eusebius in the see of Cæsarea in 340, and the Nicomedian Eusebius
as a leader of the Arian Court party in 342.

476 Bishop of Petra in Palestine. (Tomus ad Antioch. 10.) There
is some confusion in the names of the sees, and a doubt whether there
were really two Petras. Cf. Reland, Palestine, p. 298, Le Quien,
East. Christ. iii. 665, 666.

481 Here, according to the Version of Athanasius (Ap. cont. Ar.
49), the Synodical Epistle ends. An argument against the genuineness of
the addition is the introduction of a new formula of faith, while from
the letter of Athanasius “ex synodo Alexandrinâ ad legatos
apostolicæ sedis,”" it is plain that nothing was added to
the Nicene Creed. (Labbe iii. 84.)

482 This passage is very corrupt: the translation follows the Greek of
Valesius, γεννητός
ἐστιν ἅμα καὶ
γενητός. It
is not certain that the distinction between ἀγέννητος “unbegotten,” and ἀγένητος, “uncreate,” was in use quite so early as 344. If the
passage is spurious and of later date, the distinction might be more
naturally found.

490 This
translation follows the reading of the Allatian Codex, adopted by
Valesius, τῇ
καινῇ
κτίσει. If we
read κοινῇ for
καινῇ, we must render “excels or differs in relation to the
common creation” which He shares with man.

495οἰκονομία. In classical Greek οἰκονομία
is simply the management (α) of a household,
(β) of
the state. In the N.T. we have it in Luke xvi. for
“stewardship,” and in five other places; (i) 1 Cor. ix.
17,
A.V. “dispensation,” R.V. “stewardship;”
(ii) Eph. i. 10 A.V. and R.V. “dispensation;” (iii) Eph. iii.
2,
A.V. and R.V. “dispensation;” (iv) Col. i. 25, A.V. and R.V.
“dispensation;” (v) 1 Tim. i. 4, where A.V.
adopts the inferior reading οἰκοδομήν, and R.V. renders the οἰκονομίαν
of אAFGKLP by “dispensation.” Suicer gives as the meanings
of the word (i) ministerium evangelii, (ii) providentia et numen quo
Dei sapientia omnia moderatur, (iii) ipsa Christi naturæ
humanæ assumptio, (iv) totius redemptionis mysterium et passionis
Christi Sacramentum. Theodoret himself (Ed. Migne iv. 93) says
τὴν
ἐνανθρώπησιν
δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ
Λόγου
καλοῦμεν
οἰκονομίαν, and quaintly distinguishes (Cant. Cant. p. 83)
ἡ σμύρνα καὶ ὁ
λίβανος
τουτέστιν ἡ
θεολογία τε
καὶ
οἰκονομία. On a phrase of St. Ignatius (Eph. xviii.),
“ὁ χριστὸς
ἐκυοφορήθη
ὑπὸ Μαρίας
κατ᾽
οἰκονομίαν,” Bp. Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers, II. p. 75
note) writes: “The word οἰκονομία
came to be applied more especially to the Incarnation
because this was par excellence the system or plan which God had
ordained for the government of His household and the dispensation of
His stores. Hence in the province of theology, οἰκονομία
was distinguished by the Fathers from θεολογία proper, the former being the teaching which was concerned
with the Incarnation and its consequences, and the latter the teaching
which related to the Eternal and Divine nature of Christ. The first
step towards this special appropriation of οἰκονομία
to the Incarnation is found in St. Paul; e.g.
Ephes. i.
10, εἰς
οἰκονομίαν
τοῦ
πληρώματος
τῶν καιρῶν.…In this passage of Ignatius it is moreover connected
with the ‘reserve’ of God (xix. εν ἡσυχί& 139·
θεοῦ
ἐπράχθη).
Thus ‘economy’ has already reached its first stage on the
way to the sense of ‘dissimulation,’ which was afterwards
connected with it, and which led to disastrous consequences in the
theology and practice of a later age.” Cf. Newman’s
Arians, chap. i. sec. 3.